(July 22, 2015 at 1:20 pm)IanHulett Wrote:(July 22, 2015 at 12:50 pm)Ace Wrote: Fan or no fan, of gays has no barring of the fact of gays not being a protect class.
Also how the fuck can one be a "fan" about being gay. :huh: I was under the assumption that it was natural. Its like saying i am a fan of the sun. Which has nothing to with me being a fan or no. The sun just fucking is, because it is natural element in our solar system
But hey, I could be wrong of homosexuality being a natural occurrences. . . Like you have pointed out, I have been wrong before.
Is it not the issue of housing, employment, adoption law and other shit they gay are already fitting in court? They can not argue as protected class.
Assume all you want. I already know your an ass for you assuming shit you don't know anything about me! :D
Geez. That's like saying I'm not a fan of The Amazing Atheist because he's a real person.
When did I point out you being wrong? I was simply succumbing to my unfortunate reflex of gloating. I DID say I apologize for that. It's kind of tough to resist the urge when it comes up.
Well, all these things are simply a matter of viewing gay people as... well... people, obviously, that have equal rights.
Hey. I was just going by what I was reading. Whether or not you intended it that way, you kind of come across as a homophobe because of your lack of belief in Homosexuality as a legitimate protected class.
Unless I'm confusing you with someone else here? Hang on a second...
*3 seconds later*
Nope. Just looked. I got the right person.
Quote:Did the court over set its bounds? hell yesHow so, did court overset its bounds? It was a 5:4 vote in favor of same sex marriage in the court ruling. Majority wins. That's how democracy works.
Why are you opposed to gay marriage? It is not so much marriage itself that I oppose. It is the fact that to democracy was taken way from the people. The people of the state's (better or for worse) had voted on the issue as they have a legal right to do so.
Hmmm you are right if you just read my reply and not all of the conversation. It could be seen as being mad. I have talked to the guy I responded to before and the 14th amendment always comes up. My argument is in opposing to the majority. But I am one who never like to take and discusses the majority view under the majority idea. Conterversy, opposition, against, should never be feared and should always be done to any majority rule or thought. It is not only a matter of fun but either make the view/iead stronger or weaker.
As for not being a protected class. No not under the law, homosexuality is not a protected class. Even the during the argument in the court the same sex lawer argued that the gay members of the community should be grant a class. This was not done in the final ruling. In the federal law it is listed who is considered a protected class.
No opposition should ever be stopped, feared, or made quite.
As for you question about were I see the government over stepped it self. Marrige has always been under the state to decide. Even justices robberts said that this case should have been sent back to the states.
